OSWALD IN THE DOORWAY- the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign by Ralph Cinque

www.oswald-innocent.com

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! It sounds like you are getting pretty worried there. You're worried about how much trouble you're in. Well, if you had just kept your mouth shut and not said anything, I would have put the crime report up. But now that I know you want it so bad, I'm not putting it up at all- just for that reason. So, you can just stew in your merry land. Ha Ha Ha Ha!

And once again, it focuses mainly on the two issues in the case which I consider most important: Oswald in the doorway and the Two Oswalds.

And let me make it clear that, at this point, both are beyond doubt. That Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, and that he started life with a name other than Lee Harvey Oswald are facts as certain as any in the known universe. And, those who deny either are engaging in Orwellian mind control and nothing more. If you retain any doubts that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites, those doubts will be completely eradicated by this video.

But, in addition to those two issues, the film includes a spattering of other points, and all of them powerful, compelling, and weighty. It's another strong, persuasive production- if I do say so myself.

I have disabled the ratings feature this time, since on the first one they found a way to pile on Dislikes without even having them register as Views. That was really stupid- as if hundreds of people were going to Dislike the video without even watching it. But, as Forrest Gump told us: Stupid is what Stupid does.

So now, the only way to impact the video is to leave a Comment. And to my adversaries, know that I will allow critical comments, so long as they are specific and concrete. If you want to challenge some specific point made in the video- or more than one specific point- it's fine. I will leave your comment up and respond to it. But, if you try to issue a general denunciation, I will delete it and then ban you from the channel- permanently. Capisce?

But, I don't think my enemies want to go mano-a-mano with me over any of the points because the points are too strong. That's why they vandalize my truck instead. But, I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that because I know who is going to win that contest. And, there really is no contest.

If you are my friend and supporter, please watch the video and share it with everyone you know. It's for a good cause: JFK truth. So, with no further, adieu, I give you:

So, how could that tiny, diminutive Marguerite, who was short compared to Marina Oswald who was only 5'1", appear so tall in the photo with the shoe store employees? Simple. They were all midgets. It was a requirement to work there. You bloodied bastards! There is nothing you won't do or say to protect the killers of JFK.

No, Unger; this doesn't work. Look how big her head is. Look how big her hand is. She is obviously out of proportion to the others.

Look, you dumb fuck:

Why would such a diminutive woman have such a big hand and fat fingers compared to the others? You made her too big. Yes, I know it's possible to make any image any size you want, but there's this thing called integrity which is supposed to restrain you. You don't just do it because you can. But, you bloodied bastards have no integrity. But, you and the rest of your lot boil in the blood of John Kennedy.

This is Marina and Marguerite at the Dallas PD, and you can see that Marguerite was considerably shorter than Marina who was herself short. The tall woman in front of the shoe store could not possibly be the midget Marguerite of fame. Take that, you bloodied bastards!

If my enemies want to make their own version of this where the Marguerite of fame is as tall as the woman whose head is circled, go right ahead. I wish they would. I could use a good laugh. But no, they won't because if they did, they would see how ridiculous it looks. So, they'll remain in bloodied silence. It's what the bloodied do in situations like this.

Here is how the Marguerite of fame would have fit in at the Christmas photo shoot in front of Paul's Shoes.

And if anything, I made her too big. Look at the size of her hands and her feet compared to the others. Compare her hands to the woman next to her. So, I could have and should have reduced her some. But, nevertheless, the point is made: she was a different woman; a shorter woman.

Monday, March 30, 2015

"I wasn't sure who you were so I googled your name, and I see that you have your share of JFK attackers. Don't let it bum you out. The same people who brought you Oswald are very good at discouraging people from talking about it. Last time I went to a forum about it, I talked to the speaker after the forum and soon after that, someone broke into my house and stole my copies of the prints. That was a long time ago. Even so, the way these guys work is to trash anyone who gets involved in telling the truth. I really don't care if you publish my name or not. I see that this has become an issue for you, but hold fast because you are on the right track. My main goal now is to see that Phil n Perry's hard work didn't go for nothing, and that their photographs and discoveries don't pass when I do."a correspondent, whose name shall not be given

Backes, you haven't responded to my retort. There isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that that tall woman was the midget Marguerite of fame. You know damn well that midget Marguerite, in any group of random adults, would stand out for being short, but that is not the case for the Marguerite outside the shoe store, who was standing there with the other employees of Paul's Shoes. You have to be incredibly stupid not to see that- or incredibly corrupt. But, apparently, you thought you could just let it slide.Well, you can't, and we'll let the great Harry Nilsson tell you why: "You're breakin' JFK's heart; You're tearing it apart; So FUCK YOU!" Now, read it again, Backass. Certain things in life you can't ignore, and this is one of them. * * * * * * *

This is not a statement by Marguerite Oswald. This is a statement by an FBI agent who was reporting on what he was supposedly told by a Mrs. James L. Taylor. But, why is there no direct statement from Mrs. Taylor about what Marguerite told her about her having worked at Paul's Shoes? And why is there no statement from Marguerite Oswald about it?

This was just a deliberate attempt to merge the identities of the Marguerite impostor with the real Marguerite. We know this was not the Marguerite Oswald of fame:

We know it at a glance because we know that in a crowd of people that large, the Marguerite of fame could NEVER appear so tall. That absolutely clinches it in itself. The hearsay statement of Mrs. Taylor above (written by an FBI agent) said that she lived at 4936 Collinswood, an apartment building in Ft. Worth. But, actually the street was Collinwood. There was no "s". Do you think Mrs. Taylor would have made that mistake? It's true that the Marguerite of fame lived on Collinwood. But, that was after LEE had joined the Marines, and he listed HIS mother's address at the time as 3830 W. 6th. The Ft. Worth Retail Merchants Association also had Marguerite Oswald living on 6th Street and not on Collinwood at that time. So, that's two confirmations that the Marguerite who worked at Paul's Shoes was NOT living on Collinwood where Mrs. Taylor lived. Here's #3: an immunization form filled out by LEE in July 1957 in which he listed his mother's address as 3830 W. 6th. Here's #4: in August 1957, LEE mailed his mother a postcard from Hawaii (in route to Japan) and he mailed it to 3830 W. 6th, not the Collinwood address where Mrs. Taylor lived and knew the other Marguerite. So, that completely eliminates Mrs. Taylor as having been a neighbor to the real mother of LEE Oswald.It was in the fall of 1957 that the real Marguerite started working at Paul's Shoes in Ft. Worth. This picture was actually taken as a Christmas picture, so that's Christmastime 1957.

At that time, the Marguerite of fame was living, with Harvey, at the Hotel Senator in New Orleans. She wasn't even in Ft. Worth! That falls into the Palmer McBride period, where McBride said that he worked with Harvey at the Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans, and they were spending their free time listening to classical music and going to meetings of the Astronomy Club. And Palmer McBride met Mrs. Oswald and described her as we know her: short. And it wasn't just Palmer McBride. It was also Georgia Bell, Maury Goodman, Rita Paveur, and Louis Marzialle. They were all shown the picture of the tall Marguerite outside Paul's Shoes, and they said she was NOT the Marguerite Oswald they knew in New Orleans.In January 1958, the real Marguerite made a trip to New York City to spend 10 days with her son, John Pic. That's recorded. But, during that same time, the Marguerite impostor was still living at the Hotel Senator in New Orleans with Harvey while he worked at Pfisterer. What, do you think she left him to fend for himself while she went off to New York for 10 days? Of course not! THEY WERE DIFFERENT WOMEN!NEVER did the FBI interview any of these employees of Paul's Shoes about the Marguerite who worked there.

And more significant is the fact that the federal income tax forms of Marguerite Oswald have never, to this day, been released. Why? Because they would show simultaneous employments at different places of someone named Marguerite Oswald.Just as there were two LHOs, there were two Marguerite Oswalds, and that FBI statement concerning what Mrs. Taylor supposedly said about the Marguerite she knew having worked at Paul's Shoes is pure tripe, and it is overruled by a mountain of evidence. The woman circled in this picture below was NOT the Marguerite Oswald of fame. No way, no how, no chance.

The following is by OIC Chairman James Norwood. It's part of an ongoing discussion we are having in the OIC about the Sylvia Odio incident. All agree that phony Oswald sightings were used to frame him, but which ones really involved him? And when I say "him" I mean the Oswald of fame, the one who got arrested and charged with two murders and was then killed two days later by Jack Ruby.

The Framing of Oswald: The Sponsors of the Legend vs. the Authors of the Official Storyby James Norwood, OIC Chairman

Over the weekend, the members of OIC discussed the complex Sylvia Odio case.

One of the personal revelations to me was the distinction that must be drawn between:

(a) those who were framing Oswald prior to the assassination in creating the Oswald "legend," and

(b) those members of officialdom who selectively drew upon the phony evidence to craft the final version of the story in the Warren Report

These are two interdependent groups of people:

Group A: The Sponsors

It would appear that the sponsors who planted false evidence to make Oswald the scapegoat included James Jesus Angleton, Richard Helms, David Atlee Phillips, George Joannides, Howard Hunt, and others in the CIA and natural security network.

Group B: The Authors of the Official Story

It would appear that J. Edgar Hoover was the key player who, within weeks of the assassination, had formulated the template for the "official" story about Oswald. Hoover selectively drew upon the fictitious stories developed from Group A for the information that he provided to the Warren Commission. Katzenbach, LBJ, and the members of the Warren Commission essentially followed the blueprint of Hoover. There is no substantial evidence to suggest that Group B had foreknowledge or were participants in the JFK assassination. In many ways, Group B was being duped by Group A, just like the American people.

************

The Sylvia Odio story may only come into focus only by recognizing that a different set of people was responsible for "staging" this event in the first place than those who later distilled the information in the official version. For the American public, the result was complete confusion in understanding the facts of this story. Due to this courageous woman and the information we now know about Group A, we are able to piece together most of the Odio story.

Ralph Cinque astutely observed that the official story of Oswald "changed course suddenly in going with 'the crazed lone-nut who was disgruntled with America-in general' story." That is precisely what occurred in the crucial transitional period of November 22 until the formation of the Warren Commission.

The original sponsors (Group A) had to be outraged with the changed story. For many months, they had worked hard to plant a trail of evidence to link Oswald to Cuba through fabricated the Mexico City adventure, which would result in the World War III scenario with a full-scale invasion of Cuba.

********

The response that the original sponsors had never anticipated turned out to be the major wild card in this story: the initial reactions of the American people. The sponsors were expecting such outrage from the public that a military invasion of Cuba would be inevitable. Group A had simply assumed that the JFK assassination would be another Pearl Harbor.

But, instead, the American people reacted with an unprecedented outpouring of grief at the death of JFK. The members of Group A were expecting another "date which will live in infamy" speech; instead, they were treated to a weekend of collective mourning in a national ritual made palpable by the medium of television. In the aftermath of the eulogies and the baroque funeral ceremony spanning November 23-25, the original sponsors (Group A) discovered that they were screwed!

The story of Oswald had to be reshaped at this time into the "lone nut" scenario. And instead of recovering for American interests an island off the coast of Florida, the sponsors (Group A) had to settle for a disastrous and protracted war in Southeast Asia.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Friday, March 27, 2015

I have a strong conviction about who was involved in the vandalism attack against me.I am stating publicly that I think the ruthless cyber hit-man who goes by "bpete", and who is located in the UK, was involved. bpete and I have been at combat for a long time, years. He is vicious, and if you have any doubts about whose side he's on, I'll inform you that bpete has said that Oswald "locked and loaded" on the 6th floor and "pumped rounds into Kennedy." His words. It is also my considered opinion that bpete was involved in hacking into my computer and my email accounts. So, I maintain it has been one continuous criminal enterprise of which bpete is a central participant. But, what happened recently was not a cyber attack but a physical act. Someone scraped a slur into the paint on my truck. bpete's initial response was to say this:"Rest assured, Ralph, that instead of keying your truck, I'd have taken a Sharpie and written hemorrhoid on your forehead, cheeks and chin."Now, why would he assume to know that the damage was done with a key? It may have been. It well could have been. But, why would bpete presume to know that? It could have been done with a pocket knife, with a straight edge, or any number of other sharp objects, including a key, but why would bpete presume to know that? I didn't say anything about the size of it. Then he said:"Is his girlfriend writing 'asshole' in the dirt on his truck on the way to her car each morning?"Why would he bring up dirt on my truck, and why would he presume that there was enough dirt on my truck in which to write? In fact, that is what happened: somebody did write a slur into the dirt on my truck; but how did bpete know? I didn't say anything about dirt. I did say that prior to this scratching incident there was a writing incident, but that's all I said. I didn't say anything about dirt. But, there's more. Why would he matter-of-factly say that my girlfriend, on her way to her car goes by my truck? First of all, how does he even know she has a car? I'm sure I never mentioned whether she does or doesn't. Why would I? And second, how does he claim to know that her getting to her car involves her passing my truck? That my truck is "on the way" to her car? bpete is in the UK, although I should point out that he recently warned me that he was coming to Texas. But, the point is that all of this involves information that he has that clearly indicates that, if he is not doing it himself, he is directly involved with and connected with the people who are stalking me. And I am definitely being stalked. There is no chance that they gained access to my truck while it was parked on my property. It means that when I come and go, they have a means of following me. They may have installed a tracking device on my truck, and that is being investigated. I am 100% convinced that bpete has been involved in all the crimes that have been committed against me. And I am just as certain that he is a mercenary; that he is paid to do what he does. He is not just some avid JFK enthusiast who happens to have all this free time to blog about JFK. And be aware that he never initiates anything. He reacts. He is a hit-man. And, I believe that bpete and the people he works for have no limits. And when I say no limits, I mean that they have no moral limits. You know very well that JFK people have been killed to silence them, and not just witnesses and participants but also investigators, such as Dorothy Kilgallen and Mary Pinchot Meyer, to name two. Would they kill me? Huh! I have no doubt it has been considered. Why? Because I champion the most dangerous thing there is: Oswald in the doorway. There is nothing that compares to it when it comes to exonerating Oswald. Let me give you an example. Two years ago, during the run-up to the 50th, there was a lot of coverage and a lot of interviews. Occasionally, they would bring on opponents of the official story. A very popular one was Dr. Cyril Wecht. Dr. Wecht's main approach (well, really his only approach) is to challenge the Single Bullet Theory. He maintains that the forensic evidence proves that there was a shot from the front, specifically, a Grassy Knoll shooter. He doesn't challenge the idea that Oswald was the 6th floor shooter, but he insists that there had to be at least one other. Repeatedly, I have explained why this is really a nonsense position because Oswald was not an assassin nor was he a sniper. He had NEVER in his life done the kind of shooting that was involved from the 6th floor. Nobody- not the CIA and not the Mafia- would have wanted him to be a shooter, when he could have just as likely blown Jackie's brain out as JFK's. And then who would have stood next to LBJ at the swearing-in ceremony? So, once you move to the idea of a conspiracy or multiple shooters, you lose Oswald as a shooter because in a conspiracy, especially one involving the CIA and/or the Mafia, nobody would want Oswald to be a shooter. A patsy? Yes. A shooter? No. But, Dr. Wecht ignores all that, and therefore, he is about the friendliest, least hostile, and most media-friendly disputer of the official story that there is. And that's why he is so often invited. In fact, Dr. Wecht's position mirrors the whole media concept that the choices are limited to: Oswald shooting as a lone-gunman or Oswald shooting as part of a conspiracy. That's it! And when the media conducts polls, that's how they do it. They never give the person the chance to vote for Oswald innocence. It's either Oswald did alone, or Oswald did it with others: take your pick. One way or another, OSWALD DID IT.But, here's my point: What if instead of talking about the preposterousness of the Single Bullet Theory (and note that I realize that it is preposterous) Dr. Wecht talked about Oswald in the doorway? "Oswald could not have done it because he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots." What if Cyril Wecht said that on national television? It's only a theoretical question because they wouldn't let him say it. First note that there is a broadcast delay involved:"In radio and television, broadcast delay refers to the practice of intentionally delaying broadcast of live material. A short delay is often used to prevent profanity, bloopers, violence, or other undesirable material from making it to air, including more mundane problems such as technical malfunctions (i.e. an anchor's lapel microphone goes dead) or coughing. In this instance, it is often referred to as a seven-second delay or profanity delay."What I'm saying is that if Cyril Wecht or anybody tried to state on national television that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, they would break away. They would go to commercial. They would claim a technical breach. They would do something. They would never allow it. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that they would increase the length of the broadcast delay if someone who was truly adversarial were appearing on national television to discuss the case.So, what about the preposterousness of the Single Bullet Theory? Ten years ago, they were making jokes about it on Seinfeld. They devoted a whole episode to it: The Magic Loogie. The Single Bullet Theory is actually safe to talk about- from their perspective. They don't care; they'll let you fire away. But, Oswald in the doorway? It makes grown men tremble and shudder because it is the most powerful piece of evidence there is in the whole JFK case. And why shouldn't it be? Oswald is a defendant, and like every defendant, he has the right to say where he was at the time the crime was committed. "I couldn't possibly have done it because I was at XXX doing YYY at the time it happened." It's the cardinal basis of anybody's defense- including Oswald's. And he happened to be in the doorway. And I happen to be one who says that- a lot. I say it loud and I say it often, and because of the threat it poses to the official story, I am targeted; I am stalked; and crimes are committed against me. And that's why they stick vicious attack dogs like bpete on me. Yes, bpete is vicious; but, he is not smart. If he were smart, he would not foolishly make incriminating statements like these:

I've pointed out that there is a lot of wisecracking and smart-aleking that goes on by bpete and his cronies, but all that is fake. These people, and the people they work for, are deadly serious. Deadly, like in all the JFK people who have been killed over the decades.

Backes, I demolished everything you said about that tall woman posing with staff in front of the shoe store being the same woman as the short, dumpy Marguerite of fame. You didn't respond. Perhaps that's your way of acknowledging that I'm right. But, it's not good enough.So, read it again. This is proof-postive that the Marguerite Oswald who worked at Paul's Shoes was a different woman. There were two Marguerites, just as there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds.

Why won't you admit it? It's because of blood- the blood of John Kennedy in which you are soaked. * * * * * * * * *

This is not a statement by Marguerite Oswald. This is a statement by an FBI agent who was reporting on what he was supposedly told by a Mrs. James L. Taylor. But, why is there no direct statement from Mrs. Taylor about what Marguerite told her about her having worked at Paul's Shoes? And why is there no statement from Marguerite Oswald about it?

This was just a deliberate attempt to merge the identities of the Marguerite impostor with the real Marguerite. We know this was not the Marguerite Oswald of fame:

We know it at a glance because we know that in a crowd of people that large, the Marguerite of fame could NEVER appear so tall. That absolutely clinches it in itself. The hearsay statement of Mrs. Taylor above (written by an FBI agent) said that she lived at 4936 Collinswood, an apartment building in Ft. Worth. But, actually the street was Collinwood. There was no "s". Do you think Mrs. Taylor would have made that mistake? It's true that the Marguerite of fame lived on Collinwood. But, that was after LEE had joined the Marines, and he listed HIS mother's address at the time as 3830 W. 6th. The Ft. Worth Retail Merchants Association also had Marguerite Oswald living on 6th Street and not on Collinwood at that time. So, that's two confirmations that the Marguerite who worked at Paul's Shoes was NOT living on Collinwood where Mrs. Taylor lived. Here's #3: an immunization form filled out by LEE in July 1957 in which he listed his mother's address as 3830 W. 6th. Here's #4: in August 1957, LEE mailed his mother a postcard from Hawaii (in route to Japan) and he mailed it to 3830 W. 6th, not the Collinwood address where Mrs. Taylor lived and knew the other Marguerite. So, that completely eliminates Mrs. Taylor as having been a neighbor to the real mother of LEE Oswald.It was in the fall of 1957 that the real Marguerite started working at Paul's Shoes in Ft. Worth. This picture was actually taken as a Christmas picture, so that's Christmastime 1957.

At that time, the Marguerite of fame was living, with Harvey, at the Hotel Senator in New Orleans. She wasn't even in Ft. Worth! That falls into the Palmer McBride period, where McBride said that he worked with Harvey at the Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans, and they were spending their free time listening to classical music and going to meetings of the Astronomy Club. And Palmer McBride met Mrs. Oswald and described her as we know her: short. And it wasn't just Palmer McBride. It was also Georgia Bell, Maury Goodman, Rita Paveur, and Louis Marzialle. They were all shown the picture of the tall Marguerite outside Paul's Shoes, and they said she was NOT the Marguerite Oswald they knew in New Orleans.In January 1958, the real Marguerite made a trip to New York City to spend 10 days with her son, John Pic. That's recorded. But, during that same time, the Marguerite impostor was still living at the Hotel Senator in New Orleans with Harvey while he worked at Pfisterer. What, do you think she left him to fend for himself while she went off to New York for 10 days? Of course not! THEY WERE DIFFERENT WOMEN!NEVER did the FBI interview any of these employees of Paul's Shoes about the Marguerite who worked there.

And more significant is the fact that the federal income tax forms of Marguerite Oswald have never, to this day, been released. Why? Because they would show simultaneous employments at different places of someone named Marguerite Oswald.Just as there were two LHOs, there were two Marguerite Oswalds, and that FBI statement concerning what Mrs. Taylor supposedly said about the Marguerite she knew having worked at Paul's Shoes is pure tripe, and it is overruled by a mountain of evidence. The woman circled in this picture below was NOT the Marguerite Oswald of fame. No way, no how, no chance.

Write in the dirt on my truck? How would bpete know whether there is dirt on my truck? Who said anything about dirt? And why would Linda have to walk by my truck on her way to her own car? bpete is in the UK. What arrangement is he claiming to be aware of, and how does he claim to be aware of it?

Her own car? On what basis do you claim to know that Linda has a car? You're in the UK. I know that not long ago you said that you were making a trip to Texas. Hmmm. I'll pass this on to Gordon, and we'll see what he thinks.

Punk! I asked you a question: On what basis did you claim to know that the damage to my truck was done with a key? Repeat: ON WHAT BASIS DID YOU CLAIM TO KNOW THAT THE DAMAGE TO MY TRUCK WAS DONE WITH A KEY? Your failure to answer will be taken as presumptive evidence of your complicity and guilt in the commission of this crime.And, you are one dumb pluck.

And by the way: the joke's on you, and we've had a lot of laughs about it. If you only knew... you dumb pluck.

It goes on for over a minute. You see LHO sitting on the sofa next to his (supposed) half-brother, John Pic. BUT, THEY DON'T INTERACT AT ALL. THEY DON'T LOOK AT EACH OTHER. THEY DON'T TALK. NOTHING! THEY'RE LIKE FFFFing STRANGERS!

Marina was sitting on the edge of the couch next to LHO, but he lived with her and talked to her all the time. Wouldn't he take the opportunity to talk to his brother whom he hadn't seen in years? Wouldn't he want to tell him about his experiences in Russia? And find out about his life? Isn't it obvious as Hell that these two were strangers?And that's exactly what John Pic told the Warren Commission, that when he saw Lee, he did not recognize him as his brother. He was probably thinking to himself, "Who is this guy, and what have they done with Lee?"And here's an important question: Where was Marguerite? Why wasn't she there? This was, supposedly, her three sons and her grandchildren, and she wasn't there? Where was she, and what was she doing? Why wasn't she there?I'll tell you why she wasn't there. It's because they were willing to spring Harvey on John Pic, but there was no way on God's Green Earth that they were going to try to pass off- on him- the short, dumpy Marguerite of fame as his mother. That had as much chance of getting that air-born as a lead balloon. And they couldn't send the real Marguerite there because the switch had already occurred. The real Marguerite had already dropped off the radar. She was out of the picture. Now, here is the biggest question of all: What did John Pic think AFTER the assassination when he saw on television this short, dumpy woman parading around as Marguerite Oswald whom he knew was NOT his mother? Well, that's when somebody went and talked to John Pic- if not before that- and laid the law down to him. "You get with the program, Buster- or else." It was the exact same thing with Billy Lovelady. He didn't start claiming to be the Man in the Doorway until May 1964, and that was in an interview with Jones Harris outside the Depository building. Harris had traveled to Dallas from New York just to interview Lovelady. But prior to that, in all his testimonies, for the Dallas Police, the Warren Commission, and the FBI, there are no direct statements from him claiming to be Doorway Man. There was an FBI statement saying that they visited him the night of the 23rd in which he admitted being the Doorway Man, but it was just the FBI saying that. Why didn't they sit him down in front of a sea of microphones and let Lovelady say it to the world? It's because they knew better than that. They knew he didn't say it and that he didn't want to say it. In interrogating Lovelady for the Warren Commission, Joseph Ball diligently AVOIDED asking him directly if he was Doorway Man, in fear of what Lovelady would say. Instead, he just had Lovelady draw an arrow to himself. And this is what Lovelady drew:

He kept the arrow really small because he didn't want to piss Ball off. He knew he wasn't pleasing the guy. That tiny little arrow pointing to Black Hole Man is what Lovelady drew. And that was who he was in the picture; not Doorman. Lovelady was actually standing next to Oswald. And that was in April 1964, so as late as then- 5 months after the assassination- Lovelady was STILL resisting the idea of saying that he was Doorway Man. But then, they got to him. Big, tall men, in dark suits and sunglasses, and speaking in gruff voices, must have visited him. And I'm sure they made him an offer that he couldn't refuse. From then on, Lovelady assumed the persona of Doorway Man. But even as late as 1976, he didn't like talking about it. They never subpoenaed him to go to Washington to testify in front of the HSCA. Why not? They subpoenaed a lot of others. His lawyer must have told the Commission that he really didn't want to come there, but that he would issue a written statement. And they accepted that.

Of course, Lovelady just happened to die of a fatal first heart attack at the tender age of 41 shortly before the HSCA Report came out.But, the point is that it must have been the exact same situation for John Pic. They must have scared the living shit out of him. So, he kept his mouth shut. He stayed silent about it for the remainder of his life. But, he had to know. For goodness sake, a man knows who is mother and his brother are. You can't fool him about that.

I'll keep that for the trial, along with your other vile stuff, but what I want to know is, how do you know my truck was damaged with a key?Yeah, it could have been done with a key. I don't say no. But, it also could have been done with a pocket knife, or even a straight edge. You know, the thing that Barbara Olson preferred to call a "box-cutter" before she morphed into Lady Booth? Just sayin. So, on what basis do you presume to know that it was done with a key? That seems awfully presumptuous to me.

This is not a statement by Marguerite Oswald. This is a statement by an FBI agent who was reporting on what he was supposedly told by a Mrs. James L. Taylor. But, why is there no direct statement from Mrs. Taylor about what Marguerite told her about her having worked at Paul's Shoes? And why is there no statement from Marguerite Oswald about it?

This was just a deliberate attempt to merge the identities of the Marguerite impostor with the real Marguerite. We know this was not the Marguerite Oswald of fame:

We know it at a glance because we know that in a crowd of people that big, the Marguerite of fame could NEVER appear so tall. That absolutely clinches it in itself. The hearsay statement of Mrs. Taylor above (written by an FBI agent) said that she lived at 4936 Collinswood, an apartment building in Ft. Worth. But, actually the street was Collinwood. There was no s. Do you think Mrs. Taylor would have made that mistake? It's true that the Marguerite of fame lived on Collinwood. But, that was after LEE had joined the Marines, and he listed HIS mother's address at the time as 3830 W. 6th. The Ft. Worth Retail Merchants Association also had Marguerite Oswald living on 6th Street and not on Collinwood at that time. So, that's two confirmations that the Marguerite who worked at Paul's Shoes was NOT living on Collinwood where Mrs. Taylor lived. Here's #3: an immunization form filled out by LEE in July 1957 in which he listed his mother's address as 3830 W. 6th. Here's #4: in August 1957, LEE mailed his mother a postcard from Hawaii (in route to Japan) and he mailed it to 3830 W. 6th, not the Collinwood address where Mrs. Taylor lived and knew the other Marguerite. So, that completely eliminates Mrs. Taylor as having been a neighbor to the real mother of LEE Oswald.It was in the fall of 1957 that the real Marguerite started working at Paul's Shoes in Ft. Worth. This picture was actually taken as a Christmas picture, so that's Christmastime 1957.

At that time, the Marguerite of fame was living, with Harvey, at the Hotel Senator in New Orleans. She wasn't even in Ft. Worth! That falls into the Palmer McBride period, where McBride said that he worked with Harvey at the Pfisterer Dental Lab in New Orleans, and they were spending their free time listening to classical music and going to meetings of the Astronomy Club. And Palmer McBride met Mrs. Oswald and described her as we know her: short. And it wasn't just Palmer McBride. It was also Georgia Bell, Maury Goodman, Rita Paveur, and Louis Marzialle. They were all shown the picture of the tall Marguerite outside Paul's Shoes, and they said she was NOT the Marguerite Oswald they knew in New Orleans.In January 1958, the real Marguerite made a trip to New York City to spend 10 days with her son, John Pic. That's recorded. But, during that same time, the Marguerite impostor was still living at the Hotel Senator in New Orleans with Harvey while he worked at Pfisterer. What, do you think she left him to fend for himself while she went off to New York for 10 days? Of course not! THEY WERE DIFFERENT WOMEN!NEVER did the FBI interview any of these employees of Paul's Shoes about the Marguerite who worked there.

And more significant is the fact that the federal income tax forms of Marguerite Oswald have never, to this day, been released. Why? Because they would show simultaneous employments at different places of someone named Marguerite Oswald.Just as there were two LHOs, there were two Marguerite Oswalds, and that FBI statement concerning what Mrs. Taylor supposedly said about the Marguerite she knew having worked at Paul's Shoes is pure tripe, and it is overruled by a mountain of evidence. The woman circled in this picture below was NOT the Marguerite Oswald of fame. No way, no how, no chance.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

That's right, Backes. Most conveniently, the road signs filled the east half of the doorway in the Hughes film, covering up the people who were there. It was just one of those weird photographic things that now and then happens. I'm sure it was perfectly innocent. But, what I want to know is: where did Backes get those old posts of mine? If you recall, I got his "Ralph Cinque is a stupid bitch" site shut down by Google because of his death threats. And then amazingly, he threatened me again a few weeks later, and I got it shut down again. And he had to start all over again a third time. So, he lost all that content. But, the point is that he couldn't mine his sites to get them, and it would have been hard as hell to find them on my site. You can't tell me that he remembered the dates, where to look for them. That would be some fishing expedition.Therefore, how did he come up with that so fast? He suddenly gets the idea to put up my posts about the Hughes film, and he has them at his fingertips in a jiffy? Is he storing my posts on his hard drive? Does he have them all filed and categorized? Dumb fuck. He's committed; I'll give the dipshit credit for that. But, summing up, yeah, I get it that it is- apparently- the road signs obscuring the doorway, but I am not OK with the Hughes film in any case. For example, there is this freaky Lovelady.

What happened to his plaid shirt? (Of course, he didn't really wear a plaid shirt; I mean the plaid shirt they lie about him wearing.)Psst. He's not even Lovelady. Lovelady was never even in that spot, and that's clear from the testimony.

No, Backes. The height difference between the two Marguerites was very real.The Marguerite of fame was very short. She was shorter than Marina, and Marina is short.

The other Marguerite was tall- unless you think she just happened to always go with midget men.

Robert E. Lee Oswald, above, would have had to be awfully short for a man for the short, squatty Marguerite of fame to measure up that tall next to him.And I guess Ekdahl was a midget too because she stood pretty tall next to him as well. Actually, he was 6 feet tall.

And you know, Backes, I'm not the only one who points this out. It's not really a Ralph Cinque claim; lots of people point it out. Here is George W. Bailey, who is 1000X smarter than you are.

Maybe it's time for you to start a new webpage? George W Bailey is a stupid bitch.blogspot.com? That's your style, isn't it? And what's wrong with this picture, Backes:

First of all, it's a picture of the employees of Paul's Shoe Store in Ft. Worth, a place that the Marguerite of fame never worked. The Marguerite of fame was a private duty nurse. She didn't work retail selling shoes. So, the very fact that the Marguerite in the picture is standing there with those people is proof positive that she is a different woman than the Marguerite of fame. But, should you be insane enough to continue claiming that she is the Marguerite of fame- that she moonlighted at the shoe store without telling anybody or putting it in her resume, I'll point that they would all have to be a bunch of midgets, the men and women both, for that to be the Marguerite of fame, considering how short she was. You're stupid, Backes. You were born stupid, and you're going to stay that way.